____/ Peter Köhlmann on Saturday 04 August 2007 17:51 : \____
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> 64-bit PCs: Drivers wanted
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Microsoft is requiring those device manufacturers to develop 64-bit
>>>| drivers if they want their devices to work with the 64-bit edition of
>>>| Windows Vista, in an effort to ensure that device drivers are written to
>>>| proper standards.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6200517.html
>>>
>>>
>
http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g262/Clyzer/?action=view¤t=Untitled.jpg
>>>
>>> The consequences of closed source. More here:
>>>
>>
>> And yet, so many people here, in cola, are arguing that proprietary
>> drivers are a good thing, even in Linux.
>>
>
>
> You may now point to the URLs/Msg-IDs of those posts, Mark Hadron
> It is amazing how similar your lies are to Hadron Quarks lunacy
>
> Jusat to sum it up for the mentally challenged (like you are an extreme
> example), it was argued that *not* having any drivers at all, as the GPL3
> would cause, is a "bad thing".
> After all, you can't force a vendor to open-source his drivers. The only,
> and deserved, answer would be "fuck you, idiot"
> The GPL3 would make the situation even worse. *Much* worse
>
> < snip >
Why? Because of Tivoization? If I buy a piece of hardware, I can issue any
command and have the device obey it. Why should a device control the user?
Sounds like nanny device for spooks. If such a device exists, I do not want
it.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI"
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 118 total, 1 running, 117 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
